‫ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ‬
Banha University
Faculty of Arts
English Department
A Guiding Model Answer for
First Grade
Civilization
June 11 (Year 2011)
Faculty of Arts
Prepared by
Mohammad Badr AlDeen Al-Hussini Hassan Mansour, Ph.D.
University of Nevada, Reno (USA)
1
‫ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ‬
First Grade
Department of English
Second Term (Year 2010/2011)
Time: 3 hours
Civilization
‫ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ‬
Respond to the following questions:
1. Choose three only of the following questions:
A. The early Britons.
B. The Anglo Saxon kingdom of England.
C. Feudal England under the Normans.
D. Henry III and the origin of parliament.
2. Write about two only of the following subjects:
A. The reign of King Offa and the coming of Scandinavians.
B. Alfred of Wessex.
C. Beowulf and The Vision of Piers Plowman.
3. Write an essay about the Romans in England: their coming, their conquest,
and Christianity in Britain.
Good Luck
Mohammad Badr AlDeen Al-Hussini Hassan Mansour
2
‫ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ‬
Answers
Question One (A):
Write on the early Britons?
Answer:
The Britons (sometimes Brythons or British) were the Celtic people living in Great
Britain from the Iron Age through the Early Middle Ages. They spoke the Insular Celtic
language known as British or Brythonic. They lived throughout Britain south of about the
Firth of Forth; after the 5th century Britons also migrated to continental Europe, where they
established the settlements of Brittany in France and the obscure Britonia in what is now
Galicia, Spain. Their relationship to the Picts north of the Forth has been the subject of
much discussion, though most scholars accept that the Pictish language during this time
was a Brythonic language related to, but perhaps distinct from, British.
The earliest evidence for the Britons and their language in historical sources dates to
the Iron Age. After the Roman conquest of 43 AD, a Romano-British culture began to
emerge. With the advent of the Anglo-Saxon settlement in the 5th century, however, the
culture and language of the Britons began to fragment. By the 11th century their
descendants had split into distinct groups, and are generally discussed separately as the
Welsh, Cornish, Bretons, and the people of the Hen Ogledd ("Old North"). The British
language developed into the distinct branches of Welsh, Cornish, Breton, and Cumbric.
Question One (B):
Write on the Anglo Saxon kingdom of England?
Answer:
Anglo-Saxon England refers to the period of the history of England that lasts from
the end of Roman Britain and the establishment of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the 5th
century until the Norman conquest of England in 1066. Anglo-Saxon is a general term that
refers to the Germanic settlers who came to Britain during the 5th and 6th centuries,
including Angles, Saxons, Frisii and Jutes.
Anglo-Saxon England until the 9th century was dominated by the Heptarchy, the
kingdoms of Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia, Essex, Kent, Sussex and Wessex. These
kingdoms were pagan during the early period, but were converted to Christianity during the
7th century. Paganism had a final stronghold in a period of Mercian hegemony during the
640s, ending with the death of King Penda in 655.
Facing the threat of Viking invasions, the House of Wessex became dominant
during the 9th century, under the rule of Alfred the Great. During the 10th century, the
individual kingdoms unified under the rule of Wessex into the Kingdom of England, which
3
‫ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ‬
stood opposed to the Danelaw, the Viking kingdoms established from the 9th century in the
North of England and the East Midlands. The Kingdom of England fell in the Viking
invasion from Denmark in 1013, and was ruled by the House of Denmark until 1042, when
the Anglo-Saxon House of Wessex was restored. The last Anglo-Saxon king, Harold
Godwinson, fell at the Battle of Hastings in 1066.
As the Roman occupation of Britain was coming to an end, Constantine III
withdrew the remains of the army, in reaction to the barbarian invasion of Europe. The
Romano-British leaders were faced with an increasing security problem from sea borne
raids, particularly by Picts on the East coast of England. The expedient adopted by the
Romano-British leaders was to enlist the help of Anglo-Saxon mercenaries (known as
foederati), to whom they ceded territory. In about AD 442 the Anglo-Saxons mutinied,
apparently because they had not been paid. The British responded by appealing to the
Roman commander of the Western empire Aëtius for help (a document known as the
Groans of the Britons), even though Honorius, the Western Roman Emperor, had written to
the British civitas in or about AD 410 telling them to look to their own defence. There then
followed several years of fighting between the British and the Anglo-Saxons. The fighting
continued until around AD 500, when, at the Battle of Mount Badon, the Britons inflicted a
severe defeat on the Anglo-Saxons.
After the defeat of the Anglo-Saxons by the British at the Battle of Mount Badon in
c.AD 500, where according to Gildas the British resistance was led by a man called
Ambrosius Aurelianus, Anglo-Saxon migration was temporarly stemmed. Gildas said that
this was "forty-four years and one month" after the arrival of the Saxons, and was also the
year of his birth. He said that a time of great prosperity followed. But, despite the lull, the
Anglo-Saxons took control of Sussex, Kent, East Anglia and part of Yorkshire; while the
West Saxons founded a kingdom in Hampshire under the leadership of Cerdic, around AD
520. However, it was to be 50 years before the Anglo-Saxons began further major
advances. In the intervening years the Britons exhausted themselves with civil war, internal
disputes, and general unrest: which was the inspiration behind Gildas's book De Excidio
Britanniae (The Ruin of Britain).
The next major campaign against the Britons was in AD 577, led by Cealin, king of
Wessex, whose campaigns succeeded in taking Cirencester, Gloucester and Bath (known as
the Battle of Dyrham). This expansion of Wessex ended abruptly when the Anglo-Saxons
started fighting amongst themselves, and resulted in Cealin eventually having to retreat to
his original territory. He was then replaced by Ceol (who was possibly his nephew): Cealin
was killed the following year, but the annals do not specify by whom. Cirencester
subsequently became an Anglo-Saxon kingdom under the overlordship of the Mercians,
rather than Wessex.
If the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles are to be believed, the various Anglo-Saxon
kingdoms which eventually merged to become England were founded when small fleets of
4
‫ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ‬
three or five ships of invaders arrived at various points around the coast of England to fight
the Sub-Roman British, and conquered their lands. As Margaret Gelling points out, in the
context of place name evidence, what actually happened between the departure of the
Romans and the coming of the Normans is the subject of much disagreement by historians.
The arrival of the Anglo-Saxons into Britain can be seen in the context of a general
movement of German people around Europe between the years 300 and 700, known as the
Migration period. In the same period there were migrations of Britons to the Amorican
peninsula: initially around AD 383 during Roman rule, but also c.460 and the 540s and
550s; the 460s migration is thought to be a reaction to the fighting during the Anglo-Saxon
mutiny between about 450 to 500, as was the migration to Britonia (modern day Galicia, in
northwest Spain) at about the same time. The historian Peter Hunter-Blair expounded what
is now regarded as the traditional view of the Anglo-Saxon arrival in Britain. He suggested
a mass immigration, fighting and driving the Sub-Roman Britons off their land and into the
western extremities of the islands, and into the Breton and Iberian peninsulas. The modern
view is of co-existence between the British and the Anglo-Saxons. Discussions and analysis
still continues on the size of the migration, and whether it was a small elite band of AngloSaxons who came in and took over the running of the country, or a mass migration of
peoples who overwhelmed the Britons.
Question One (D):
Write on Henry III and the origin of parliament?
Answer:
It is to these years under Henry III that historians turn for the earliest signs of the
major contribution of the English Middle Ages to the West—the development of
Parliament. The word parliament comes from French and simply means a “talk” or
“parley”—a conference of any kind. The word was applied in France to that part of the
curia regis which acted as a court of justice.
In England during the thirteenth century, the word often refers to the assemblies
summoned by the king, especially those that were to hear petitions for legal redress. In
short, a parliament in England in the thirteenth century was much like the parlement in
France—a session of the king’s large council acting as a court of justice.
The Norman kings made attendance at sessions of the great council compulsory; it
was the king’s privilege, not his duty, to receive counsel, and it was the vassal’s duty, not
his privilege, to offer it. But by requiring the barons to help govern England, the kings
strengthened the assembly of vassals, the great council. The feeling gradually grew that the
king must consult the council. Yet the kings generally consulted only the small council of
their permanent advisers; the great council met only occasionally and when summoned by
the king.
5
‫ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ‬
The barons who sat on the great council thus developed a sense of being excluded
from the work of government in which they felt entitled to participate. It was baronial
discontent that led to the troubles under Henry III. When the barons took over the
government in 1258, they determined that the great council should meet three times a year,
and they called it a parliament. When Henry III regained power, he continued to summon
the feudal magnates to the great council, to parliament.
The increasing prosperity of England in the thirteenth century had enriched many
members of the landed gentry who were not necessarily the king’s direct vassals. The
inhabitants of the towns had also increased in number and importance with the growth of
trade. Representatives of these newly important classes in country and town now began to
attend parliament at the king’s summons. They were the knights of the shire, two from each
shire, and the burgesses of the towns.
Recent research has made it seem probable that the chief reason for the king’s
summons to the shire and town representatives was his need for money. By the thirteenth
century the sources of royal income were not enough to pay the king’s ever-mounting bills.
Thus he was obliged, according to feudal custom, to ask for “gracious aids” from his
vassals. These aids were in the form of percentages of personal property, and the vassals
had to assent to their collection.
So large and so numerous were the aids that the king’s immediate vassals naturally
collected what they could from their vassals to help make up the sums. Since these
subvassals would contribute such a goodly part of the aid, they, too, came to feel that they
should consent to the levies. The first occasion for which there is clear evidence of the king
summoning subvassals for this purpose was the meeting of the great council in 1254.
The towns also came to feel that they should be consulted on taxes, since in practice
they could often negotiate with the royal authorities for a reduction in the levy imposed on
them. Burgesses of some towns were included for the first time in Simon de Montfort’s
“Parliament” of 1265. Knights of the shire also attended this meeting because Simon
apparently wanted to muster the widest possible support for his program. But only known
supporters of Simon were invited to attend the Parliament.
Question Two (B):
Write on Alfred of Wessex?
Answer:
Alfred The Great, king of Wessex (871–899), a Saxon kingdom in southwestern
England. He prevented England from falling to the Danes and promoted learning and
literacy. Compilation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle began during his reign, c. 890.
6
‫ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ‬
When he was born, it must have seemed unlikely that Alfred would become king,
since he had four older brothers; he said that he never desired royal power. Perhaps a
scholar’s life would have contented him. His mother early aroused his interest in English
poetry, and from his boyhood he also hankered after Latin learning, possibly stimulated by
visits to Rome in 853 and 855. It is possible also that he was aware of and admired the great
Frankish king Charlemagne, who had at the beginning of the century revived learning in his
realm. Alfred had no opportunity to acquire the education he sought, however, until much
later in life.
He probably received the education in military arts normal for a young man of rank.
He first appeared on active service in 868, when he and his brother, King Aethelred
(Ethelred) I, went to help Burgred of Mercia against a great Danish army that had landed in
East Anglia in 865 and taken possession of Northumbria in 867. The Danes refused to give
battle, and peace was made. In this year Alfred married Ealhswith, descended through her
mother from Mercian kings. Late in 871, the Danes invaded Wessex, and Aethelred and
Alfred fought several battles with them. Aethelred died in 871 and Alfred succeeded him.
After an unsuccessful battle at Wilton he made peace. It was probably the quality of the
West Saxon resistance that discouraged Danish attacks for five years.
In 876 the Danes again advanced on Wessex: they retired in 877 having
accomplished little, but a surprise attack in January 878 came near to success. The Danes
established themselves at Chippenham, and the West Saxons submitted “except King
Alfred.” He harassed the Danes from a fort in the Somerset marshes, and until seven weeks
after Easter he secretly assembled an army, which defeated them at the Battle of Edington.
They surrendered, and their king, Guthrum, was baptized, Alfred standing as sponsor; the
following year they settled in East Anglia.
Wessex was never again in such danger. Alfred had a respite from fighting until
885, when he repelled an invasion of Kent by a Danish army, supported by the East
Anglian Danes. In 886 he took the offensive and captured London, a success that brought
all the English not under Danish rule to accept him as king. The possession of London also
made possible the reconquest of the Danish territories in his son’s reign, and Alfred may
have been preparing for this, though he could make no further advance himself. He had to
meet a serious attack by a large Danish force from the European continent in 892, and it
was not until 896 that it gave up the struggle.
The failure of the Danes to make any more advances against Alfred was largely a
result of the defensive measures he undertook during the war. Old forts were strengthened
and new ones built at strategic sites, and arrangements were made for their continual
manning. Alfred reorganized his army and used ships against the invaders as early as 875.
Later he had larger ships built to his own design for use against the coastal raids that
continued even after 896. Wise diplomacy also helped Alfred’s defense. He maintained
7
‫ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ‬
friendly relations with Mercia and Wales; Welsh rulers sought his support and supplied
some troops for his army in 893.
Alfred succeeded in government as well as at war. He was a wise administrator,
organizing his finances and the service due from his thanes (noble followers). He
scrutinized the administration of justice and took steps to ensure the protection of the weak
from oppression by ignorant or corrupt judges. He promulgated an important code of laws,
after studying the principles of lawgiving in the Book of Exodus and the codes of
Aethelbert of Kent, Ine of Wessex, and Offa of Mercia, again with special attention to the
protection of the weak and dependent. While avoiding unnecessary changes in custom, he
limited the practice of the blood feud and imposed heavy penalties for breach of oath or
pledge.
Alfred is most exceptional, however, not for his generalship or his administration
but for his attitude toward learning. He shared the contemporary view that Viking raids
were a divine punishment for the people’s sins, and he attributed these to the decline of
learning, for only through learning could men acquire wisdom and live in accordance with
God’s will. Hence, in the lull from attack between 878 and 885, he invited scholars to his
court from Mercia, Wales, and the European continent. He learned Latin himself and began
to translate Latin books into English in 887. He directed that all young freemen of adequate
means must learn to read English, and, by his own translations and those of his helpers, he
made available English versions of “those books most necessary for all men to know,”
books that would lead them to wisdom and virtue. The Ecclesiastical History of the English
People, by the English historian Bede, and the Seven Books of Histories Against the
Pagans, by Paulus Orosius, a 5th-century theologian revealed the divine purpose in history.
Alfred’s translation of the Pastoral Care of St. Gregory I, the great 6th-century pope,
provided a manual for priests in the instruction of their flocks, and a translation by Bishop
Werferth of Gregory’s Dialogues supplied edifying reading on holy men. Alfred’s
rendering of the Soliloquies of the 5th-century theologian St. Augustine of Hippo, to which
he added material from other works of the Fathers of the Church, discussed problems
concerning faith and reason and the nature of eternal life. This translation deserves to be
studied in its own right, as does his rendering of Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy. In
considering what is true happiness and the relation of providence to faith and of
predestination to free will, Alfred does not fully accept Boethius’ position but depends
more on the early Fathers. In both works, additions include parallels from contemporary
conditions, sometimes revealing his views on the social order and the duties of kingship.
Alfred wrote for the benefit of his people, but he was also deeply interested in theological
problems for their own sake and commissioned the first of the translations, Gregory’s
Dialogues, “that in the midst of earthly troubles he might sometimes think of heavenly
things.” He may also have done a translation of the first 50 psalms. Though not Alfred’s
work, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, one of the greatest sources of information about Saxon
England, which began to be circulated about 890, may have its origin in the intellectual
8
‫ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ‬
interests awakened by the revival of learning under him. His reign also saw activity in
building and in art, and foreign craftsmen were attracted to his court.
In one of his endeavors, however, Alfred had little success; he tried to revive
monasticism, founding a monastery and a nunnery, but there was little enthusiasm in
England for the monastic life until after the revivals on the European continent in the next
century.
Alfred was never forgotten: his memory lived on through the Middle Ages and in
legend as that of a king who won victory in apparently hopeless circumstances and as a
wise lawgiver. Some of his works were copied as late as the 12th century. Modern studies
have increased knowledge of him but have not altered in its essentials the medieval
conception of a great king.
Question Two (C):
Write on Beowulf and The Vision of Piers Plowman?
Answer:
In Beowulf, as clearly as in the Greek epics, the oral origin of the poem is made
explicit by the poet's own references to oral poems in the narrative, so that Beowulf is
conservative in its view of poetry as well as in its historical outlook. The origin of a poem
such as Beowulf can be viewed within the Old English epic in the important scene starting
at line 867. The sort of instant praise-poetry is not, however, simply a direct restatement of
the hero's deed. The "evoker of stories" instead praises Beowulf by beginning with the
story of Sigemund, who had a similar exploit (killing a dragon), and he ends with a mention
of the blameworthy Heremod, an early Danish king, the complete opposite of Beowulf.
There is no mention of the way in which he actually praised the maiming of Grendel by the
contemporary hero; it could well be that what the old retainer composed in fact made little
or no reference to Beowulf. Surprising as this might seem, it would fit with what can be
seen in the Iliad, in the episode just mentioned above: the present is continually set into its
past heroic context in this oral traditional material.
That something like the horseback poem of the retainer could have occurred in early
times is suggested by the Roman historian Tacitus' account of Germanic tribesmen, who, he
reported, sang the histories of their ancestors before battles and at night in their camps.
This urge to turn the past into incentive for the present lies at the root of heroic poetry as
well as praise-poetry, the kernel form of the epic. In the song of the retainer, which
resembles Greek praise-poetry in its use of a "negative foil" figure (the blamed character),
one can see the kernel blossoming into a full-fledged narrative.
As in the analysis of the Greek epics, the notion of type-scene and theme proves
useful in establishing connections between Beowulf and oral composition. The analysis of
the low-level formula—the repeated phrase or word—is less conclusive; Beowulf appears
9
‫ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ‬
to be oral because it appears to have a high percentage of formulas or formula-types
(repeated syntactical groupings such as epithet and noun), but the statistical method should
not be relied on completely. It has recently been shown that poems known to have been
written and signed by Cynewulf, probably in the ninth century, would have to be classified
as "oral" if the same counting methods were applied. It could be that both Cynewulf's
poems and the epic Beowulf are transitional products of the meeting of an oral tradition
with a learned, Christianized, literate society. This would explain the seemingly
incongruous elements of Christian faith in the heroic poem. Whatever the results of the
diction-oriented analysis, the occurrence of traditional type-scenes and themes in Beowulf is
important in itself and may be taken to show the poem's oral heritage.
Beowulf has its start in an arrangement of type-scenes remarkably like that of the
Odyssey: a hero sets out by boat, is met on landing, is greeted and entertained, finds
important information, and acts on it to the advancement of his own heroic career. Beowulf
acts immediately; the poem is consequently much shorter.
The Beowulf-poet handles themes with much dexterity. An example is the "taunt of
Unferth" scene. The taunt is itself a genre in oral society, as the Homeric epics and modern
African examples make clear. Here, the taunt is expanded to contain a thematic narrative
remarkably like the theme of the surrounding poem: the underwater exploits of Beowulf.
Unferth, a retainer of the Danish king Hrothgar, asks Beowulf on arrival whether he is the
man who lost a swimming-match against Breca. Beowulf's reply is an elaborate,
suspenseful narrative of a fight with sea-demons—the "correct" version of the story, unlike
Unferth's, and a foreshadowing of his defeat of Grendel's mother beneath the lake.
Beowulf (like Odysseus in the Odyssey) acts the part of the oral poet. Is it not significant,
then, that he wins over the final monster, not with Unferth's donated sword Hrunting, but
with the "blade of old-time" found in the den of Grendel, which only Beowulf among
heroes can lift? His personal weapon, like his personal story, is the one to surpass the
competing stories of heroic action; fame, in an oral culture, tunes out the noise of rumor.
As well as containing hints of its own origin, Beowulf has one scene that might
point to the kind of poetry that ultimately replaced it: the introduction of Grendel into the
narrative describes his approach to the hall of the Danes where he had daily heard
singing—and the song consists of nothing less than the creation of the world by God.
Piers Plowman, the greatest Christian poem in the English language, comes from
the second half of the fourteenth century and is thought, although not unanimously, to be
the work of William Langland. Nothing certain is known about him; even his name comes
doubtfully to us through a late tradition. All we know of his personal life is what he tells us
of it in the poem, and that is little enough and open to doubt. In these uncertainties, it is best
to begin by setting out such facts as there are, for they shed a light helpful to criticism on
the poem, on the man who wrote it, and on how it was written and received.
10
‫ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ‬
The poem is cast in the form of a series of dream-visions told in the first person, as
if dreamer and poet were one; and no sensitive reader can escape some impression of his
personality and genius, or fail to wonder at the spiritual range and intensity of a mind that
can generate a ferociously satirical laughter, a compassion as humane as Lear's, and a
mystical sense of glory in God's love as expressed in the passion and resurrection of Christ.
A wanderer named Will narrates Piers Plowman and is presented as the author of
this epic poem. One day Will falls asleep and has a visionary dream in which members of
all social classes appear in a field attending to their daily activities. At one end of the field
is a tower and beneath the field is a dungeon. A woman named Holy Church tells Will that
Truth (or God) inhabits the tower, and that Wrong (or Satan) resides in the dungeon. For
Will to save his soul, explains Holy Church, he must follow Truth. Will then observes a
dispute over arrangements for Lady Mede, who represents Reward, to marry False. The
matter is brought to the king, who suggests that Lady Mede marry Conscience, but
Conscience refuses. The king ultimately agrees to rule with the assistance of Reason and
Conscience.
In a second vision, Will encounters Reason delivering a sermon demanding
society's repentance. Following Reason's speech, characters representing each of the seven
deadly sins offer public confessions of wrongdoing. Society vows to seek out Truth; Piers
Plowman, a farmer and follower of Truth, offers to lead the way if the audience will help
him plow his small field. The joint effort fails, despite Hunger's attempts to motivate the
workers. Piers vows to find Truth on his own.
Following an argument with two friars regarding the nature of Do-Well and DoEvil, Will sustains a third vision. At the behest of Thought, Will explores Do-Well, DoBetter, and Do-Best. Along the way he meets Wit and his wife, Dame Study, who send him
to Clergy and his wife, Scripture, who attempt to explain the stages Will has set out to
explore. Unable to grasp their explanation, however, he falls asleep and enters a dreamwithin-a-dream whereby he begins to follow Fortune, Lust, and Recklessness. Scripture and
Emperor Trajan set Will straight and he re-enters the original dream, in which he discusses
such issues as education and religion with Imaginative.
Will sustains a fourth vision several years later, in which he travels with Conscience
and Patience. The three meet Hawkin the Active Man, who wears a dirty coat of
Christendom. As a result of his discussion with the trio, Hawkin becomes aware of his
sinfulness and reliance on grace and experiences a religious conversion. In a fifth vision,
Will hears Anima's views on spiritual growth and charity. In another dream-within-adream, he again encounters Piers, who shows him the Tree of Charity inherent in every
human. Will then encounters Faith, Hope, and the Good Samaritan, who represent,
respectively, Abraham, Moses and Christ. The Samaritan discusses the Holy Trinity and
stresses the necessity of repentance.
11
‫ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ‬
Some time passes before Will's next vision, in which he witnesses the crucifixion.
Awake, he chronicles his dreams up to this point and attends Easter mass with his family.
He then sustains a seventh vision, in which Piers begins to build a house known as Unity. It
is apparent at this point that Piers represents Jesus Christ and Unity the Christian church. In
his final vision, Will encounters the Antichrist and sees sin attacking Unity. After an
encounter with Old Age, he sees Unity attacked again, this time by Hypocrisy. Conscience
insists that Piers can assist, but Peace allows Friar Flatterer to enter Unity to visit the sick.
The Friar weakens Contrition, however, allowing the entry of Sloth and Pride. Conscience
appeals to Clergy for assistance, only to find Clergy has been reduced to a daze by the
Friar. As Conscience sets out to find Piers, Will awakens.
Question Three:
Write an essay about the Romans in England: their coming, their conquest, and Christianity
in Britain?
Answer:
The written history of England really began in 55 BC when Julius Caesar led an
expedition there. Caesar returned in 54 BC. Both times he defeated the Celts but he did not
stay. Both times the Romans withdrew after the Celts agreed to pay annual tribute.
The Romans invaded England again in 43 AD under Emperor Claudius. The Roman
invasion force consisted of about 20,000 legionaries and about 20,000 auxiliary soldiers
from the provinces of the Roman Empire. Aulus Plautius led them. The Romans landed
somewhere in Southeast England and quickly prevailed against the Celtic army. The Celts
could not match the discipline and training of the Roman army. A battle was fought on the
River Medway, ending in Celtic defeat and withdrawal. The Romans chased them over the
River Thames into Essex and within months of landing in England the Romans had
captured the Celtic hill fort on the site of Colchester.
Meanwhile other Roman forces marched into Sussex, where the local tribe, the
Atrebates were friendly and offered no resistance. The Roman army then marched into the
territory of another tribe, the Durotriges, in Dorchester and southern Somerset. Everywhere
the Romans prevailed and that year 11 Celtic kings surrendered to Claudius.
Normally if a Celtic king surrendered the Romans allowed him to remain as a
puppet ruler. Aulus Plautius was made the first governor of Roman Britain. By 47 AD, the
Romans were in control of England from the River Humber to the Estuary of the River
Severn. However the war was not over. The Silures in South Wales and the Ordovices of
North Wales continued to harass the Romans. Fighting between the Welsh tribes and the
Romans continued for years.
Meanwhile the Iceni tribe of East Anglia rebelled. At first the Romans allowed them
to keep their kings and have some autonomy. However in c. 50 AD the Romans were
12
‫ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ‬
fighting in Wales and they were afraid the Iceni might stab them in the back. They ordered
the Iceni to disarm, which provoked a rebellion. However the Romans easily crushed it. In
the ensuing years the Romans alienated the Iceni by imposing heavy taxes. Then, when the
king of the Iceni died he left his kingdom partly to his wife, Boudicca and partly to
Emperor Nero Soon, however Nero wanted the kingdom all for himself. His men treated
the Iceni very high-handedly and they provoked rebellion. This time a large part of the
Roman army was fighting in Wales and the rebellion was, at first, successful. Led by
Boudicca the Celts burned Colchester, St Albans and London. However the Romans rushed
forces to deal with the rebellion. Although the Romans were outnumbered their superior
discipline and tactics secured total victory.
After the rebellion was crushed the Celts of southern and eastern England settled
down and gradually accepted Roman rule. Then in 71-74 AD the Romans conquered the
north of England. In the years 74-77 they conquered South Wales. Then in 77 AD Agricola
was made governor of Britain. First he conquered North Wales. Then he turned his
attention to what is now Scotland. By 81 AD the Romans had captured the area from the
Clyde to the Forth. In 82 they advanced further north. In 83 the Romans won a great victory
at Mons Graupius (it is not known exactly where that was). However in 86 the Romans
withdrew from Scotland.
In 122-126 the Emperor Hadrian built a great wall across the northern frontier of
Roman Britain to keep out the people the Romans called the Picts. However under the
Emperor Antonius Pius the Romans again invaded Scotland. In 42-43 they defeated the
Picts. The Romans then built a wall of turf with a stone base to protect their conquests.
However the Antonine Wall, as it was called, was abandoned about 163. The Roman army
withdrew to Hadrian's Wall.
By the middle of the 3rd century the Roman Empire was in decline. In the latter half
of the 3rd century Saxons from Germany began raiding the east coast of Roman Britain.
The Romans built a chain of forts along the coast, which they called the Saxon shore. The
forts were commanded by an official called the Count of the Saxon shore and they
contained both infantry and cavalry. However, the Saxon raids were, at first, no more than
pin pricks and most of Roman Britain remained reasonably peaceful and prosperous. Then
in 286, an admiral named Carauius seized power in Britain. For 7 years he ruled Britain as
an emperor until Allectus, his finance minister, assassinated him. Allectus then ruled
Britain until 296 when Constantius, Emperor of the Western Roman Empire invaded.
Britain was then taken back into the Roman fold.
In the 4th century the Roman Empire in the west went into serious economic and
political decline. The populations of towns fell. Public baths and amphitheatres went out of
use. In 367 Scots from Northern Ireland, Picts from Scotland and Saxons joined to raid
Roman Britain and loot it. They overran Hadrian's Wall and killed the Count of the Saxon
shore. However the Romans sent a man named Theodosius with reinforcements to restore
13
‫ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ‬
order. In 383 some Roman soldiers were withdrawn from Britain and the raiding grew
worse. The last Roman troops left Britain in 407. In 410 the leaders of the Romano-Celts
sent a letter to the Roman Emperor Honorius, appealing for help. However he had no troops
to spare and he told the Britons they must defend themselves.
Roman Britain split into separate kingdoms but the Romano-Celts continued to fight
the Saxon raiders. Roman civilization slowly broke down. In the towns people stopped
using coins and returned to barter. The populations of towns were already falling and this
continued. Rich people left to be self-sufficient on their estates. Craftsmen went to live in
the countryside. More and more space within the walls of towns was giving over to
growing crops. Roman towns continued to be inhabited until the mid-5th century. Then
most were abandoned. Some may not have been deserted completely. A small number may
have still had a very small population who lived by farming land inside and outside the
walls. However town life as such came to an end. In the 5th century Roman civilization in
the countryside faded away.
14